New York Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs Lacked Article III Standing in Putative Class Action Alleging Violations for Failure to File Mortgage Satisfactions

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of New York state statutes requiring mortgagees to file timely mortgage satisfactions do not have Article III in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016).  

New York Federal Court Holds Mortgagees Must Ensure Clerks Receive Satisfactions of Mortgages Within 30 Days of Payment

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a mortgagee who sent a mortgage satisfaction for recording on the thirtieth day after receiving payment in full did not “present” the satisfaction to the clerk within 30 days, in violation of RPL § 275 and RPAPL § 1921 (together, the “Statutes”).

New York Federal Court Affirms Plaintiffs’ Article III Standing in Putative Class Action Alleging Violations for Failure to File Mortgage Satisfactions

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that, in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of New York state statutes requiring mortgagees to file timely mortgage satisfactions have Article III standing.  

Seventh Circuit Holds That District Court Properly Dismissed Action When Borrowers Did Not Demonstrate That Alleged Injuries Were Caused by RESPA Violation

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to a loan servicer on a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim when the borrowers could not sufficiently allege any connection between their alleged injury and the RESPA violation.

Sixth Circuit Rejects Borrowers’ Claim for Rescission Under TILA for a Lender’s Failure to Notify the Borrowers That the Debt Had Been Assigned

In a case “that appears to be a new question in the court of appeals,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s holding that a lender’s failure to notify its borrowers of the assignment of the borrowers’ deed of trust did not entitle the borrowers to rescind the loan under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).